Construct Validity of a Standards-Based Inventory of Foundation Competencies in Social Work with Groups

Purpose: The International Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups (IASWG) created Standards for the Practice of Group Work. Despite being published over a decade ago, the Standards have not been widely known. To help move the Standards into practice and teaching, an instrument to measure confidence in doing the Standards was developed called the Inventory of Foundation Competencies in Social Work with Groups (ICSWG). Although tested in two studies, its factor structure has not been examined, a critical step in its development. This paper reports on such testing along with other tests to identify the best performing items to ensure the most effective and efficient measure of the Standards.

Methods: The 70 items in the ICSWG were drawn exclusively from the IASWG Standards. The instrument measures how confident the respondent thinks s/he could successfully demonstrate each skill, scaled from 1 to 4, “very unconfident” to “very confident,” respectively. The sample for this study combined participants from two studies, yielding a sample of 584 practitioners, students, and academics from the U.S., Canada, and Britain. A multistage validation process was used involving exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a random half of the sample, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (SEM) with another random half of the sample, in an iterative process to identify factors and items to retain. This was followed by tests of the scale’s and subscale’s internal consistency, convergent validity with a similar measure of group work skills (Core Group Work Skills Inventory, CGWSI), and criterion known-groups validity by comparing mean ICSWG scores from group work experts with entry-level BSW students.

Results: For the EFA, a principal-axis factor extraction was performed. A seven-factor solution using promax rotation yielded the most interpretable solution, resulting in a 62-item measure. The first three factors were named after the stages of group development, Planning, Beginning/Middles, Endings, with the remaining factors named Core Values, Connecting Members within Group, Connecting with Colleagues, and Connecting Members with Resources. Next, SEM of the seven factor model provided an adequate fit to the data, χ2 (1777) = 2863.33, p < .001; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .05 (90% CI = .04 to .05). The coefficient alphas of the total scale (.98) and subscales (mean alpha = .85) were excellent. Convergent validity analyses indicated significant, strong correlations with the CGSWI for the scale (r = .74) and subscales (mean r = .65). Finally, BSW students’ confidence scores were substantially lower than those of the group work experts on the measure (p < .001, d = 1.20) and on subscales (p < .001, mean d = 1.00), supporting the criterion, known groups validity of the ICSWG-62.

Conclusions: The findings further support the reliability and validity of the only standards-based measure of foundation skills in social work with groups. The seven-factor model revealed concepts that are important, which should be a core part of group practice and teaching. The instrument can be used to develop ability in the IASWG Standards, now in a shorter version.